The Biggest Lie about Grace .... Law

Snoeberger makes some sound biblical points. It would be helpful if we had something from Olsen responding with a scriptural argument and more detailed explanation of what he means. There is certainly a gracious aspect in the process of sanctification (Christ’s yoke is easy, and we may rest in His love), but it is certainly biblical for a little fear to keep us in line as well when we are not quite so in tune with living by grace.

To say that “if there’s anything that God hates – it’s moralism!” needs explanation as well. I know there are six things God hates, yea, even seven…but moralism isn’t one of them.

I think it’s safe to safe that grace is a teacher of righteousness, and grace creates a healthy fear of the Lord.

Couldn’t believe it when I read Matt’s post this morning. Astonishingly simplistic misrepresentation of the New Testament.

Kudos to Mark for an excellent and timely response.

And, as a matter of shameless self-promotion, I would point to my article on Proclaim & Defend - Distortions of Sanctification. It addresses the same subject, but, alas, not as succinctly as Mark does.

Perhaps I’m missing something. Matt’s posting reads:

“Fear drives us to control people with rules and regulations. These have no power to produce what pleases God but instead only bring about a kind of religious moralism that is very far from genuine Christianity.”

The author is saying that rules (developed because of fear and with the desire to control people) are unable to produce genuine Christianity. This is not a blanket statement about rules.

Snoeberger is talking about both fear and rules in his post. I’m not sure where “controlling people” fits in, but have we really reached the point where we think behavior does not need to be controlled?

Well, because the New Testament is filled with fear-motivated rules and regulations that function as legitimate self-disciplinary tools for the promotion of true Christian godliness. Note the following:

• “Great fear” induced the early church not to lie (Acts 5:5, 11 cf. 19:17ff).
• Paul exhorts us as believers to “purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of fear for God” (2 Cor 7:1).
• Paul tells slaves to “be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ” (Eph 6:5).
• Paul tells his readers, “As you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil 2:12).
• The author of Hebrews tells his readers to persevere out of “fear” that they were self-deceived in their profession and might thereby miss God’s rest (Heb 4:1).
• After exhorting his readers to “be holy,” Peter offers a vital reason: “Since you call on a Father who judges each man’s work impartially, live your lives as strangers here with fear” (1 Pet 1:17).

Where, in any shape or form, does Matt suggest that “behavior does not need to be controlled”? I am not questioning Dr. Snoeberger’s points; I question his inference from Matt’s article.

Whenever we get to the point that my obedience is mine or my gratefulness is something I have worked up, then we have missed something or added something to grace. Apart from the Holy Spirit at work in our lives there is no hope for obedience or gratitude. It is only because Christ has been obedient that God can look favorably upon us.

It seems that when Matt talks about fear it is the unhealthy, performance-driven, rule-based fear that for so long has permeated some segments of Christianity. Since God has already given us all things pertaining to life and godliness there are no tools needed to promote godliness.

Speaking of “fear-motivated rules and regulations” as “tools for the promotion of true Christian godliness” (per Mark) gives the impression that the more tools we use the more godly we become and easily leads to moralism or standardism. We then measure ourselves and others by our obedience to rules and regulations (which we all fail to keep anyway). I see rather that our obedience is motivated by grace because God has given us a delight in him which causes us to stand before him with reverence and awe.

Hebrews 12:28 “Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire.”

Steve, that was beautifully stated. Saved me some typing and I would’ve have said it as well.

we need to keep having it. i’m all agog that Olson is reading Fitzpatrick and her daughter. that puts his school on my possibility list for my kids, no joke.

before the discussion goes any further, you should listen to this:

http://castroller.com/Podcasts/WhiteHorseInn/2639057?start=undefined

an interview with E.F., kind of explains things here even better than in her book, I’ve heard.

will write more in a bit maybe about these actually two posts.

Speaking of “fear-motivated rules and regulations” as “tools for the promotion of true Christian godliness” (per Mark) gives the impression that the more tools we use the more godly we become and easily leads to moralism or standardism.

The debate about sanctification and the role of complex motivations in it is pretty important. But to get anywhere, we’ll have to reason carefully. It doesn’t follow that if fear and rules have a role, therefore the more fear and rules the better. Nobody is saying that.

We all agree that eating is good, but not that the more we eat the better. We agree that speaking is good but not that the more talk the better (Prov 10.19). Preaching… OK, some do think that if preaching is good, the more the better—not a good example. How about sleep: sleep is good, but nobody thinks more is necessarily better (Prov 6.10-11).

So the debate will improve if we can let it be about what it’s really about.

(BTW, Snoeberger links in his own thread to this summary of DeYoung vs. Tchividjian on the question. This is not at all a “fundamenalists” vs. “everybody else” debate.)

Part of the problem in the sanctification debate is—as the DeYoung-Tchividjian exchange shows—some of it seems to consist of differences in preferred language and emphasis rather than differences in substance. But there are substantive differences also.

yes, stuff needs to be clarified.

1. the issue of “rules and regulations” needs to be cleared up.

2. the place of fear in sanctification

1. Grace doesn’t mean there are no rules. It means you understand their limitations of helpfulness. (That’s in brief, and this can be further shred apart.)

2. Fear: fear of what? Of consequences of our actions? Fear meaning respect of God? What fear are we talking about as an aid in sanctification? And when is fear wrong in sanctification?

I also think, it’s essential to understand that when we emphasize human effort in sanctification, then how we often feel compelled to lower God’s standards into something we can (usually) reach on a human level. When really, if we understand God’s standards/laws … Anyway, this needs to be clarified too.

also, very important, are we talking about a Christian who wants to grow or a Christian who wants to be worldly? For the second, I would more emphasize examining if s/he is really a Christian….

I think we have a pretty good idea how much we need to sleep or eat (although the speaking part eludes us). Once the idea has been introduced that rules and regulations have, not just a role, but that they actually promote godliness or as stated later that sanctification can be furthered by rules, a subjective factor has been introduced and no one will agree on how much or how many rules and regulations do the trick. And that’s part of the problem with Mark’s corrective.

You might be able to eat too much of a good thing, or speak too much, or sleep too much, but if rules and regulations really do promote godliness, what’s the right dose for how many rules needed to be observed? Of course if they don’t promote godliness or further sanctification then we can come back to the solid ground of our sanctification in Christ alone and by grace alone in which our obedience is made possible by Christ’s obedience and our rule keeping a response to something rather than to attain something.

;)

but people still have to think through it to see the logic, yk? that sanctification in this life is much more about the positional sanctification than we usually think or is emphasized. positional sanctification in christ is THE thing.

It seems that the rules aspect is inherently included in the sanctification process in such verses as the put off the old man and put on the new man commands. Not only do they aid sanctification, they are an integral, inseparable part of sanctification. Much more than simply evidence that sanctification is happening, they are part of the sanctification.

[Anne Sokol]

;)

but people still have to think through it to see the logic, yk? that sanctification in this life is much more about the positional sanctification than we usually think or is emphasized. positional sanctification in christ is THE thing.

I don’t think positional sanctification is THE thing, but is part of THE thing. Most of the NT discussion is about practical sanctification, not positional.